I mean, I still super enjoyed my XBox without ever subscribing to XBox Live. (Easy to say when half your library is fighters and the early 2000s sucked for going online in fighters and the other half of your library is all single player, but still ...)

And my Wii, when the hell did I ever use that to go online except to vote on polls and check the weather ... (Again, because Wii online suuuucked aaaaaass for Smash and other online multiplayer.)

So like, I don't mind being "off the grid" with my Switch. I still think the Switch looks great and will be awesome for Nintendo fans who no longer have to buy a GB/GBA/DS/3DS and an SNES/N64/GC/Wii/WiiU just to play all of the Nintendo library games they want to play.

But yeah ... having to pay a monthly fee likely to be $5/mo or greater, or an annual fee likely to be $60/yr or greater (same difference), just so that I can do my Pokémon trading and battling online ... Not gonna lie, it seems pretty ass and I don't see how they can justify it when they're not promising anything new which would seem to require this change. Like, I get spending $5/mo if it buys us something new, something incredible, something we didn't know we were missing out on until it arrived. But charging $5/mo just to let me do what I can already do in Gens 4/5/6/7 (when each was the current gen) ... That I just don't get.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

For me, there's a much bigger deal breaker I've read about. It's actually the first (and tbph the only) thing which has made me second-guess owning a Switch altogether. And that's that you can't directly access the battery anymore without major disassembly. I don't tend to be as impacted by this sort of thing as other people, since I always play plugged in to the wall whenever I can. (I'd say the ratio of plugged in to not plugged in for my DS Lite and 3DS both is something like 19:1.) But even I don't like to be told, "Once the battery dies, yer fucked." I liked how the DS Lite's battery was so readily accessible. Just unscrew this panel here and voilŕ, problem solved. Being told for the Switch, "If you're unhappy with how little charge your battery holds you need to send this device in to Nintendo" ... Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...

Because of this, and because I anticipate a repeat of the Wii (where the fucker is near impossible to find for going on one year after its release), I'm thinking I might end up sitting out the first year of Switch ownership. Wait and see if a Switch Lite either comes out or at least is announced in 2018. "Longer battery life! More accessible battery! Better screen!" The usual.

But I dunno ... Not gonna lie, I'd really like to play Breath of the Wild sooner than later. Like, "I'll still buy the game in March and then invite myself over to someone else's house to play it" level of would like to play it soon. Really don't want to have to wait until 2018 to play it. :\

Xbox Live an all its features are free on PC. That oughta say it all, ya?

Quote:

If you want these features, it's going to cost money. Server farms aren't cheap to maintain and host for a lengthy period of time, especially with how much data they're going to process.

Unless Nintendo's gonna pay for dedicated servers for every game on the system, something neither MS or Sony does, they'd be wasting a whole lotta money on those farms! Even then it'd prolly be a bad idea for players. Once a games online player count shrinks enough, the devs paying for dedicated servers usually sink 'em. P2P is prolly better for a games online longevity in the long run. It also shouldn't be charged for but somehow MS/Sony convinced people ta basically increase their monthly internet bill x.x

Quote:

Originally Posted by deoxys

Even when PSN was free, it lacked a lot of the nice features it has since gained from going pay2play.

What features? PS+ existed on PS3/PSP for a long while before PS4 came along. It had cloud saving, "free" games, free other downloads, additional discounts, auto-updating, etc. All PS+ gained on PS4 was... online gaming. An already existing and free service now tied to a paid one. In fact PSN hasn't even improved since people still go on about how the PS Store sucks to browse on consoles, why PSN download speeds are still terrible, whys PSN keeps going down so much, and help my PSN accounts been hacked!

I don't really play online that much, so the paid online thing doesn't effect me. I still plan on getting one whenever I can, which I still find kind of strange. I usually would prefer waiting a year or so for a new console before getting one, but some unknown force is telling me "GET A SWITCH AS SOON AS YOU CAN!". I think Nintendo is putting hypnosis in their Switch trailers.

Speaking of the "free" virtual console game a month, how are people even gonna be able to play 'em when the default controller that comes with the system doesn't have a d-pad? Oh I know, just spend a meager $70 on the pro controller!

Speaking of the "free" virtual console game a month, how are people even gonna be able to play 'em when the default controller that comes with the system doesn't have a d-pad? Oh I know, just spend a meager $70 on the pro controller!

Speaking of the "free" virtual console game a month, how are people even gonna be able to play 'em when the default controller that comes with the system doesn't have a d-pad? Oh I know, just spend a meager $70 on the pro controller!

It's a repeat of the early Xbone/PS4 list wars, give or take some dollars here an there. Truly Nintendo has entered the current era of gaming o.o!

I mean, compare that to the Wii U:

$350 system
$40 controller ($115 if you dare need a replacement gamepad. Also worth noting that the Wii U comes with only the gamepad and no extra controller. As the JoyCon can be used by two players, it's basically two controllers in one)
$60 game
$25 controller charging dock

So, altogether the Wii U at launch costed $475 USD (which, by the way, jumps to $500 USD when you adjust the price for the inflation between 2012 and 2016), and if you ever need a replacement gamepad that's jacked all the way up to $590 USD ($620 USD adjusted for inflation). Compare to the Switch, which at launch costs $510 USD.

So even if we're generous and assume you never need a replacement gamepad, the Switch only costs $10 more. If we aren't, it's a steal costing $110 less than its predecessor.

I don't see where there's any room to complain about the price-tag, and I say this as a jobless teenager who might not be able to afford the fee for online services. Just because it's not what I want or can afford doesn't mean it's an unfair or unreasonable price.

The left-hand joycon button diamond acts as a split d-pad similar to the c-pad on the N64 controller. I mean, I know it's not traditional, but you don't need to buy a pro-controller to play VC games.

That sounds only slightly less worse then using an analog stick for 2d games >.<;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snorby

I don't see where there's any room to complain about the price-tag, and I say this as a jobless teenager who might not be able to afford the fee for online services. Just because it's not what I want or can afford doesn't mean it's an unfair or unreasonable price.

I'm pretty poor to so I know how that is. I'd have gotten a U had its price ever dropped to like a reasonable level. I'll pay $250 for a PS4 sometime this year because although not all of them are out yet, or even will be for awhile, I can name at least a dozen games for it I'd really love ta play. The U is also $250 however I can only think of maybe 3 games on it I would want (3D World, Smash, DKC: TF).

Looking at that and how drastically lower the amount of 3DS games I got compared to the GBA/DS I can only image how low the number of Switch games would be that'd appeal to me. They may be combining handheld & console but many strictly handheld games/series are likely gonna disappear. I'm sure not holding my breath for Brain Age Switch! Then theres how stingy Nintendo is with them never price dropping games or hardware. The U started at $250 and still goes for that price O.o New 3DS XL is still a whopping $200 itself though older 3DS versions have gone down/disappeared. I can see the Switch being $300 for years to come just like the U, prolly cause of its expensive controller keeping costs up yet again. $300's just... to much when the games aren't there and uncertainty on whether they ever will be is in the air.

I would expect the Switch to fall to a price point of $199.99 within two years. $299.99 is simply too expensive for the market demographic of 1) kids who 2) only own a Nintendo handheld. Convincing Mom and Dad to drop $100 on a 2DS is doable. Convincing them to drop $200 on a 3DS XL was already a challenge. Convincing them to drop $300 on one is out of the question. And why would the kid even want to!? Why drop $300 on a Game Boy when you could spend $300 on an XBox or PS4 instead? The answer of course is the games, but still ... younger kids, as we know from observing the past ten years, are prone to Call of Duty peer pressure. They're likelier to buy the home console that features such games.

People justified dropping $150 to $200 on a 3DS just to play Pokémon. Hell, even I spent $99 to get myself a cheapo 2DS just so I could play. As much as Pokémon is seen as a title that moves hardware, even Pokémon doesn't have the power to move $300 handhelds.

The poor game lineup, as VGM showed with the Wii, didn't hurt the preorder sales. That's because people didn't buy the NX thinking about the games, they bought the NX because it's the next gen console. You don't buy a duck hunting rifle because there's a specific duck you want to shoot.

Question: why is going online such a big deal? Can't some hotshot engineer jerry rig a way to connect online with the NX? If I could theoretically do it with my car (that is, connect/pair the car's LTE radios to a smartphone) why can't people do it with something like the NX? Does Nintendo have a paywall or something that would prevent this, like iTunes?

In regards to the pricing, compared to other consoles currently out there, it's not too outrageous. Controllers range from 60-70, and for a release console, 300 is fantastic compared to what other consoles were charging. The 30 usd for the practical joycon charging port (as in a usb one that doesn't involve box charging) is a bit sketchy, but so was Nintendo's brilliant idea of not including a charger in the new 3ds box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The poor game lineup, as VGM showed with the Wii, didn't hurt the preorder sales. That's because people didn't buy the NX thinking about the games, they bought the NX because it's the next gen console. You don't buy a duck hunting rifle because there's a specific duck you want to shoot.

Question: why is going online such a big deal? Can't some hotshot engineer jerry rig a way to connect online with the NX? If I could theoretically do it with my car (that is, connect/pair the car's LTE radios to a smartphone) why can't people do it with something like the NX? Does Nintendo have a paywall or something that would prevent this, like iTunes?

Sure there aren't a lot of games planned for release at launch of the switch, but there are quite a few announced for the system and in the works. In addition, there's still almost two months before launch, and that's plenty of time for not only games to be announced, but perhaps more set to release for the launch.

As for going online, people like connecting devices to the Internet. Lets you do all sorts of things. I imagine the Switch will have basic online functionality for say internet browsing and other such apps like Netflix, but for gaming will probably require the equivalent of xbox gold or psn. The site specifies "online multiplayer gaming" as the main selling point of the Switch Online Subscribers, as well as voice chatting and that app, so I imagine this will indeed be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87

I would expect the Switch to fall to a price point of $199.99 within two years. $299.99 is simply too expensive for the market demographic of 1) kids who 2) only own a Nintendo handheld. Convincing Mom and Dad to drop $100 on a 2DS is doable. Convincing them to drop $200 on a 3DS XL was already a challenge. Convincing them to drop $300 on one is out of the question. And why would the kid even want to!? Why drop $300 on a Game Boy when you could spend $300 on an XBox or PS4 instead? The answer of course is the games, but still ... younger kids, as we know from observing the past ten years, are prone to Call of Duty peer pressure. They're likelier to buy the home console that features such games.

People justified dropping $150 to $200 on a 3DS just to play Pokémon. Hell, even I spent $99 to get myself a cheapo 2DS just so I could play. As much as Pokémon is seen as a title that moves hardware, even Pokémon doesn't have the power to move $300 handhelds.

There's an issue with your statement there of "dropping 300 on a Game Boy". It's not a handheld. It is a console that can also be brought on the go should you so wish, major difference, and is being marketed as such. While 300 for a handheld would be, as you say, ridiculous, 300 for a console is quite a deal. So while asking your parent, "hey can you get me the new nintendo handheld, it's 300" would get some hell of eyebrows, "hey can you get me the the new Nintendo console, it's only 300," gives a much better reaction.

I would expect the Switch to fall to a price point of $199.99 within two years.

I dun see it happening but even if it does, the games will still be $60 cause as Nintendo's proven the past couple of generartions they're stingy as all hell with their game prices. Their digital sale prices are universally mocked and unless the games a bomb their retail games are still full price many years later (hellos $40 Mario 64 DS). Sure they'll eventually trot some out as Nintendo Selects when the systems near the end of its life but they may not even be the ones ya want.

Guess my main problem is that I just dun got confidence in Nintendo consoles. The last two were duds an I didn't much care for the N64. Even the SNES was just a secondary to my Genesis. An now as the 3DS has shown even their handhelds have gone downhill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crys

Sure there aren't a lot of games planned for release at launch of the switch, but there are quite a few announced for the system and in the works. In addition, there's still almost two months before launch, and that's plenty of time for not only games to be announced, but perhaps more set to release for the launch.

Theres 6 weeks until launch. Many games have gone gold by that point. I seriously don't expect a ton of the announced ones to suddenly spring up between launch and MK8 DX. And if they will, why didn't Nintendo say as much? This event was hyped up for months, all eyes were on them, and instead of plainly laying things out in detail they were like "hay gaiz 'member waggle?!".

Guess my main problem is that I just dun got confidence in Nintendo consoles. The last two were duds an I didn't much care for the N64.

I'm sorry but if you are referring to the Wii as a dud, then you have no idea what you're talking about (their last two consoles being the Wii and Wii U). The Wii is also the reason they focused on the "waggle" so much in the presentation, as you'd put it, as the Wii is their most successful home console. And just because the motion control portion of the console may seem silly to you doesn't mean it didn't appeal to a wide audience, as it ended up being one of Nintendo's most lucrative ideas.

I'm sorry but if you are referring to the Wii as a dud, then you have no idea what you're talking about (their last two consoles being the Wii and Wii U). The Wii is also the reason they focused on the "waggle" so much in the presentation, as you'd put it, as the Wii is their most successful home console. And just because the motion control portion of the console may seem silly to you doesn't mean it didn't appeal to a wide audience, as it ended up being one of Nintendo's most lucrative ideas.

Ya totally coming from personal pov. It was a dud in my eyes since I had no interest in waggle nor most of the games put out on it even the ones by nintendo. I know it was a huge initial success and that Nintendo technically won the generation in terms of units sold.

Dun think they're gonna strike gold with motion controls a second time since most/all games will have normal controls as well to suit playing 'em in 'portable' mode. And their fancy new rumble I couldn't care less about. Been disabling rumble in games for close ta 10 years now. Its a distraction/battery drainer more then anything. Which again shows they've learned nothing from the U by putting expensive and unneccesary controller tech above all else.

I would expect the Switch to fall to a price point of $199.99 within two years. $299.99 is simply too expensive for the market demographic of 1) kids who 2) only own a Nintendo handheld. Convincing Mom and Dad to drop $100 on a 2DS is doable. Convincing them to drop $200 on a 3DS XL was already a challenge. Convincing them to drop $300 on one is out of the question. And why would the kid even want to!? Why drop $300 on a Game Boy when you could spend $300 on an XBox or PS4 instead? The answer of course is the games, but still ... younger kids, as we know from observing the past ten years, are prone to Call of Duty peer pressure. They're likelier to buy the home console that features such games.

People justified dropping $150 to $200 on a 3DS just to play Pokémon. Hell, even I spent $99 to get myself a cheapo 2DS just so I could play. As much as Pokémon is seen as a title that moves hardware, even Pokémon doesn't have the power to move $300 handhelds.

The problem is you're viewing the Switch as a handheld that does console games, at least how I'm interpreting your post (sorry if that's wrong, but "$300 Game Boy"...). It is not. It is the successor to the Wii U which happens to bridge the gap to the handheld market - I believe someone at Nintendo said something along the lines of them paving the road to interconnecting their platforms in the future.

I don't think it will hit $199 for at least three, maybe four years. You're looking at $249 with a pack-in game in two years at best.

The other thing is Nintendo is setting themselves apart from PS4 and Xbox on purpose. Why get caught inbetween two warring factions when you can be the weird, silly third party candidate everyone loves?

There's an issue with your statement there of "dropping 300 on a Game Boy". It's not a handheld. It is a console that can also be brought on the go should you so wish, major difference, and is being marketed as such. While 300 for a handheld would be, as you say, ridiculous, 300 for a console is quite a deal. So while asking your parent, "hey can you get me the new nintendo handheld, it's 300" would get some hell of eyebrows, "hey can you get me the the new Nintendo console, it's only 300," gives a much better reaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deoxys

The problem is you're viewing the Switch as a handheld that does console games, at least how I'm interpreting your post (sorry if that's wrong, but "$300 Game Boy"...). It is not. It is the successor to the Wii U which happens to bridge the gap to the handheld market - I believe someone at Nintendo said something along the lines of them paving the road to interconnecting their platforms in the future.

I didn't respond to Crys as I didn't want to be seen as putting him down ... but since you've incorrectly represented my understanding too, I guess I'm forced now to reply. Pardon any condescension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talon87

I would expect the Switch to fall to a price point of $199.99 within two years. $299.99 is simply too expensive for the market demographic of 1) kids who 2) only own a Nintendo handheld. Convincing Mom and Dad to drop $100 on a 2DS is doable. Convincing them to drop $200 on a 3DS XL was already a challenge. Convincing them to drop $300 on one is out of the question. And why would the kid even want to!? Why drop $300 on a Game Boy when you could spend $300 on an XBox or PS4 instead? The answer of course is the games, but still ... younger kids, as we know from observing the past ten years, are prone to Call of Duty peer pressure. They're likelier to buy the home console that features such games.

People justified dropping $150 to $200 on a 3DS just to play Pokémon. Hell, even I spent $99 to get myself a cheapo 2DS just so I could play. As much as Pokémon is seen as a title that moves hardware, even Pokémon doesn't have the power to move $300 handhelds.

"$299.99 is simply too expensive for the market demographic of 1) kids who 2) only own a Nintendo handheld," I said.

"for the market demographic of 1) kids who 2) only own a Nintendo handheld", I said.

I'm not an idiot. I understand fully well that the Switch equally represents a sequel to the Wii U as it does to the 3DS. (I don't need to prove this. Ample evidence you can find on UPN of this understanding if you wish to look. Go. I'm not going to waste my time.)

My point was that from the 3DS side of things, $300 is too expensive. I specified this. I went to lengths to specify this. "For kids who only own a Nintendo handheld," i.e. for kids who do not own a GameCube / Wii / Wii U (in their respective generations).

I was saying, and was only ever saying, that because the handheld market represents at least an equal share of Nintendo's profits as does the console market -- and in the specific case of the previous generation, I would say I am being too generous there and that it's likelier a 3:1 ratio of the 3DS's influence to the Wii U's -- that Nintendo is going to have to bring the console down in price at some point, relatively soon I imagine (i.e. within 2 years), because there are going to be too many kids who only want a Switch from the handheld side of things who are going to be told "No " by Mom and Dad so long as it sits at a price point of $300. No amount of "But Moooooooooooom! D: It doubles as a console! D:" is going to affect such parents. Because it's not going to enter into such discussions. For these kids, who I have singled out in my discussion, the Switch is only a handheld. It is only meant to do for them what the 3DS did in the last gen and what smartphones are increasingly doing in both it and the upcoming generation.

I didn't write this originally (as I didn't think I had to! ), but I selected $200 for a reason: it's a nice middle-of-the-road pricepoint between the handheld side of things and the console side of things. Neither of you seemed to question this or notice this, as both of you were too eager to talk down to me and act like I think the Switch is only a new shiny Game Boy. If either of you had asked yourselves, "Why did Talon say $200 anyway? Isn't that a number just pulled out of his ass?", you might have realized that $200 is far too expensive still if I were coming at this from purely a 3DS angle. The 3DS launched in 2011 at a price point of $250. This proved toxically expensive for the handheld demographic and the unit saw its price slashed down to $180 within just three months. From there, the price fell only further as later revisions such as the XL, 2DS, and New 3DS were released. Today, I can waltz into Wal-Mart and get a New 3DS XL and Mario Kart 7 (digitally bundled) for under $200. And this is still too expensive for a lot of kids ... but in a world where the New 3DS XL is the king, that's okay, because it means they can have an original 3DS for under $100 or an original 3DS XL for under $150.

Why else then choose $200? Because, from the console side of things, we have history and the GameCube to fall back on. You guys don't seem to recall, but when the GameCube launched, it was launched at a price point of $279.99. This put it below its competitors, the XBox and PS2, each of which launched at $299.99. Thing was, the GameCube was the black sheep of its generation -- and Nintendo had to respond fast. When I bought my GameCube in 2002, the console was then only a year old. I paid (iirc) only $200 for it, and I got a sexy black one with Metroid Prime tossed on for free. It was a bundle I bought at Target. This would've been around Christmas 2002. So essentially the console was already selling for $150 (lol) with a $50 game. But fine, fine, we'll call it $200. Well ... only two short years later, in 2004 -- this is still a full two years before the release of the Wii, mind -- do you remember what the GameCube was selling for? $99! It was selling for $99, with a bonus game tossed in for good measure. (Example.) You can either look at that as an honest $99 price point with a game tossed in for free, or you can look at it as the (astonishingly!) bad price point of $50 with a $50 game tacked on. Either way, the GameCube reminds us that when the going gets rough for Nintendo, Nintendo is willing to sell a console far, far under what you would consider "normal" for a home console to be.

And still I chose a price point of $200 for my "two years later" hypothesis. Because you jackals have all conveniently forgotten the GameCube already and are focused entirely on the failings of the Wii U. And the Wii U, let's face it, never got its price slashed quite so badly as the GameCube did. So I said, "Fine: let's choose $200, as that's on the high end of acceptability for a handheld while still being a reasonably low pricing for a home console. It's not no $99. "

Except no one laughed. I got two replies both accusing me of forgetting that the Switch does more than play games on the go. *sigh*